State Court Archives - Page 3 of 3

13 11, 2019

Wisconsin Court of Appeals – Trained Tracking Dog was Hot Pursuit Entry onto Property Lawful

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:08:17+00:00November 13th, 2019|State Court, Tracking, Wisconsin|0 Comments

State v. Ionescu, 2019 Wisc. App. LEXIS 610 (Nov. 13, 2019) Police received a 4 am burglary call, and an officer with a dog tracking smell and the officer tracking footprints in the dew on the ground led to defendant’s property. The officer knocked and defendant’s mother let the police in. Inside was defendant, and he had a watch that was from the burglary. The entry on the property was in hot pursuit and the entry into the house was by consent. Jeffrey Ionescuappeals from his judgment of conviction for burglary, challenging the circuit court’s denial of his motion to [...]

20 08, 2019

Ohio Court of Appeals – Dog Alert is not PC to Search Passenger

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:13:40+00:00August 20th, 2019|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. Chapman, 2019-Ohio-3339, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3422 (7th Dist. Aug. 20, 2019) Turning to the facts in this case, there is no question that Hyra’s alert established probable cause to search the automobile. In its response to the motion to suppress before the trial court, the State advocated the adoption of the bright line rule announced by the Tenth Circuit in Anchondo, supra, that a canine alert on a vehicle, like the odor of burning marijuana in Moore, supra, establishes probable cause for a warrantless search of both the vehicle and its occupants. We choose instead to adopt [...]

2 01, 2018

Ohio Court of Appeals – Drug Dog on Scene while Ticket Written Caused no Additional Detention

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:14:21+00:00January 2nd, 2018|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. White, 2018-Ohio-18, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 3 (4th Dist. Jan. 2, 2018) Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion based on corroborated informant hearsay. “Because the police were still in the process of writing the traffic ticket when the canine arrived and conducted the sniff, and thus the stop was not unlawfully extended.” With regards to Case No. 16CR135, White does not allege that the initial traffic stop of his vehicle was unlawful. Rather, he contends that the canine sniff of his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Again, we disagree. Rather, after reviewing the record, we conclude that [...]

16 05, 2013

Arkansas Supreme Court – Positive Alert without Final Trained Response Recognized

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T15:55:11+00:00May 16th, 2013|Arkansas, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 201, 427 S.W.3d 607, 615 (2013) Corporal Behnke testified that when dealing with K-9 Major there can be an alert, a profound alert, or an indication. He explained that an alert is a change in behavior that the handler knows and can recognize upon his own canine. He also testified that a profound alert is something that any human being, by sitting there and watching him, can understand that the dog has had a significant change in behavior. Finally, an indication, he explained, will either be a sit, stand, or lay. In this instance, Corporal [...]

Categories

Tags